Most societies throughout the world have developed a notion of social class. It refers to hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups within society. How these social classes have been determined has been a common topic among social scientists throughout time. Two individuals have headed this long standing debate, Karl Marx and Marx Weber. Karl Marx, on the one hand, ideas about class are still influential in many cultures around the world. On the other hand Max Weber is considered one of the fathers of modern thought and one of the most influential persons in the world of intellect. Despite their clear similarities, such as both coming from a European protestant background, they have distinct differences that are very important to note. Karl Marx’s theory regarding worker alienation and the uneven distribution of capital has the greater number of parallels with today’s society. Marx-

In Marxist theory, human society consists of two parts: the base and superstructure; the base comprehends the forces and relations of production — employer-employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations — into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. These relations determine society’s other relationships and ideas, which are described as its superstructure. The superstructure of a society includes its culture, institutions, political power structures, roles, rituals, and state. The base determines (conditions) the superstructure, yet their relation is not strictly causal, because the superstructure often influences the base; the influence of the base, however, predominates. For Marx class relationships are embedded in production relationships; more specifically, in the patterns of ownership and control which characterize these relationships. Marx believed that the bourgeoisie use a mode of production in the form of capitalism to oppress the proletariat, the...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...
Karl Marx and Max Weber both have strong sociological perspectives on the concept of class in
capitalist society. Each theorist uses their own method to make inferences about the social world, and
because of this, they come to very divergent conclusions. Marx and Weber both argue that an individual’s
class position is predictive of the stratification and type of conflict that arise between classes within
society. However their main point of contention exists in their definitions of class and to what extent the
capitalist mode of production is the determining factor of an individual’s class position. Marx uses his
materialist conception of history to provide the framework for his concepts. This method is defined by
looking at changes in material conditions over time to explain larger social and economic shifts.
Conversely, Weber uses Versheten or “sympathetic understanding” to outline his concepts. This method is
defined by looking at individual subjective motives for actions and to use those to extrapolate causes for
larger economic events.
According to Marx, class structure and conflict are intrinsic to capitalist society as, “the history of
all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx, 1848, pg. 246). Using his materialist
theory of history, he demonstrates that the nature of all societies is shaped by their modes of...

...Marx vs. Weber
In this essay, I will argue that Karl Marx's theories contain a better perception of the creation of capital and the origins of time discipline use in the modern world compared to the theories of Max Weber.
The basis to Marx's theory in which capital is created is based on writings of his works; Manifesto of the Communist Party, Capital, Volume One and Wage Labor and Capital. Through these readings, it can be derived that his main thesis is to understand history, you must understand class struggles. The classes of owners of the means of production and employers of the wage laborers, the bourgeois, have the will to obtain capital in the easiest means possible. On the contrary, the classes of wage laborers, the proletariat, have no means of production of their own, and are reduced to selling their labor power in order to sustain their lives. These classes have sustained themselves through history and are evident in modern society. "The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with clash antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones." This explains that even though our society has new technology, different political and economical circumstances, the existence of these two classes are still in existence.
With that, the Materialist Conception of History is established;...

...Karl Marx and Max Weber
Andy Moss
Introduction
Karl Marx and Max Weber are two important names when thinking of sociological theory. Both men had strong views about our society. Weber’s approach to studying social life will be looked at. Then, Weber’s study of rationalization will be the main point of interest. His theory of rationalization showed us why people acted as they did. As with Weber, Marx’s approach to studying social life will be examined. Next, his theory of the capitalist mode of production will be explored. This paper will discuss his theories of the struggles between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and how they could be solved.
Max Weber
Max Weber was another intelligent thinker of the last century. His areas of study were primarily concerned with social action and rationalization. Social action is how we behave in everyday life. Ritzer says that behavior occurs with little thought, and action is what we do based on a conscious decision (2010:31). He says that Weber was not concerned with behavior that had no thought behind it, such as touching a hot stove and pulling away. “Weber was interested in situations in which people attach meaning to what they do” (Ritzer 2010:31).
Weber’s major concern was rationalization. First, there needs to be a clear definition of what rationalization actually is. A dictionary will define...

...6. Critically examine the specific methods used by Marx, Durkheim, Weber for the analysis of social forces and relations in modern society.
Defining the concept of social forces and relations in modern society without assuming them as a derivatives of other sciences such as politics, philosophy, religion conclude us with the examination of them as the core foundation of classical sociological theory. Thus we will encounter with Durkeim, Marx and Weber’s conceptualization of social forces and relations in modern society.
The idea of totality is the common feature of the classical sociological theory even the philosophical backgrounds of Durkeim, Marx and Weber’s perspectives are differ from each other. Before, we must know that the main point of the totality is analyzing the total itself rather than looking at its parts, thus society itself becomes the central point of the analysis. If we develop a scheme that will focus on the key variables in analysis of Durkheim, Marx and Weber, these variables come out as psychology, nature and the religion. In the analysis of the society there are three fundamental variables: psychology, nature and religion that Durkheim, Marx and Weber emphasized respectively. Durkheim use psychology as basic assumption of his analysis, Marx use the nature and Weber use religion.
Durkheim is an...

...Most societies throughout history and the world have developed a notion of social class. It is refers to hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups within society. How these social classes have been determined has been a common topic among social scientists throughout time. Two individuals who have headed this long standing debate are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In this paper I will be summarizing Marx and Weber’s theories on social class; how they are determined, their interests, and problems that may exist among groups. I will then provide my own critiques of their arguments.
Marx first sets up his arguments on class by referring to the historical class struggles. “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed (n.d:474). He believes society has split into two classes known as the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. This is a key point because he defines class by their control over the mode of production. The mode of production refers to the specific organization of economic production in a given society. A mode of production includes the means of production of used by society, such as factories, facilities, machines and raw materials. The Bourgeoisie are those in control of the means of production while the Proletariat must sell their labor. This was referred to as the market exchange value and was reflected in wages. The Bourgeoisie in...

...﻿Devin Young
Marx, Durkheim, and Weber: Understanding Modernity’s Implications on the Evolution of Labor
The nature of modernity is grounded in the exploration of social change by Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. Each theorist discovered a distinct link between history and society, creating separate theories based on their unique situations in the face of the emerging modern, capitalistic world. Their concepts of Alienation, Anomie, and Rationalization find the division of labor a key component of social change but see differently the way in which labor participated and evolved at the hands of social conflict.
According to Marx, the division of labor helps to fuel modernity but is ultimately a product of capitalism; therefore capitalism is the nature of modernity. To Marx, capitalism is a system of commodity production, where exchange value becomes top priority for its success. The bourgeoisie learn to strive to increase profits by any means necessary and eventually exploit the labor of the working man, giving way to Marx’s concept of Alienation. A worker becomes alienated from his product of labor at the beginning of the process of alienation, “the more objects the worker produces, the less he can possess and the more he falls under the domination of his product, capital” (Marx 16). Workers have no influence in the process of production besides giving away their...

...
Karl Marx and Wal-Mart Wage Caps
Karl Marx Is a recognized theorist for his views on the capitalist system, and the inequality that occurs between the capitalist as well as with the wageworkers. Prior to his theory it was never as easily recognized the corruption that was bound to happen between the hard working people striving to survive. Wal-Mart is one of the most publicized companies for there recent decisions made to favor the capitalist class.
KarlMarx believed before any of the economic downfalls took place that it was going to happen from the structure of capitalism. A factor that he finds contributes to the structure of capitalism is the Mode Of Production. Marx states that this is defined as meeting the needs of our existence and it plays a large roll on the organization of society. In the capitalist society there are two different classifications of mankind, the Bourgeoisie and proletariat. The Bourgeoisie are capitalists, also the wealthiest people; while the proletariat are the working class striving to survive. Generally the bourgeoisie have control over the proletariats. They both have a type of species being which they supply to the capitalist society, which is known as their means of existence (Dillon 33-40).
In the capitalist society the only concerns are producing capital to increase profit of companies toward the capitalists. The Bourgeoisie looks to the proletariats for their use-value...

...Why should the capitalist state give way to communist society, according to Marx?
The main challenge of this essay consists in identifying the reasons according to which Karl Marx considered that the capitalist state should give way to communist society. The base text for answering this question will be Marx’s own work titled “The Communist Manifesto”, however this essay will rely on other works of Marx such as “The German Ideology” or “Preface to a critique on political economy” as well as secondary literature consisting of Jon Elster, Isaiah Berlin, Andrew Levine and H.B. Acton.
The core argument of this essay is that according to Marx, class struggle and the “march of history” will inevitably lead to the demise of the bourgeoisie and the rise of a new communist society. He argues that the three main flaws of capitalism: inefficiency, exploitation and alienation should, and in time, would lead to the abolishment of capitalist society. In order to support this main argument, this essay will first give some brief background information about Marx and his ideology, and then proceed with describing the capitalist state and how the communist society would play its role after the demise of capitalism, whilst also outlining some of Marx main convictions, mainly from the “Communist Manifesto”. Furthermore this essay will discuss Marx’s arguments for why the capitalist state should give...